Do calvinists believe that God wills them to sin?

[LoveofTruth]

Okay I see where you're going. I've kind of touched on this a bit, but I'm not sure if it's being understood.

In the negative it is true: People "choose" to sin. That doesn't make it an open and shut case for free will. The question is not do people choose to sin. They do, and they do it willingly. The better question is why do people sin?
Sinning is what people do because they are sinners. In contrast, no one can do good apart from the work of God. They have to be given a new heart to "will" what is righteous

Why did Adam and Eve sin? We’re they already sinners? No

 

[RC1970]

I can't help but feel I'm being herded

Adam is responsible for his sin. God declared the curse. Are there implications I'm missing?

Sorry for the herding. I'm trying to get to the heart of this thread and you seem to have some understanding of the issue.

What is the curse (the fall)? Is it not that Adam's descendants would be made sinners?

In other words, God does (in some sense) will the we sin, since He, through the curse, made us sinners.

God could have given us the "new" heart right from the beginning.

 

[Marvin Knox]

If God had ordered it, there would be no need for Christ to cry "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" since they would have just been following orders.

God's ordaining that people do something does not equate to people being "ordered" to do those things.

This is both a misunderstanding of predestination and sovereignty

I have a very good understanding of both of those two terms.

Sovereignty doesn't, and never has, meant absolute determination of the movement of every person and molecule under one's control. Rather, sovereignty is a term of Dominion - the power and right to make and enforce rules and laws. A sovereign may delegate, allow freedom within bounds, punish wrongdoers, etc. A sovereign does not have to micromanage, and it would be a poor sovereign who forced his people to break the laws he himself made.

I didn't say otherwise. You'll get no argument from me because of your saying those things. Where did you get the idea that there would be?

Is God sovereign or do we have a free will?

Both. Just as the authoritative Calvinist Westminster Confession of Faith says.

“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

“God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. …… Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. …………. . God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.”

Predestination, as per the Greek, means to 'pre-limit' or 'set boundaries beforehand.' It does not have connotations of the English term 'destiny.' God setting the limits and boundaries of the sea is an example of predestination, but God determining the motion of every water molecule and every wave is not.

Works for me.

That is with the obvious exception of noting that "pre-limiting" and "setting boundaries beforehand" does determine what can and cannot happen and therefore what can and cannot be the destinies of things or persons in God's creation both ultimately and along the way.

The doctrine of predestination does not teach that God is associated intimately with the motion of every water molecule and every wave in the sea. Nor does the doctrine of sovereignty. What does that are verses like:

"Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" and "In Him we live and move and have our being." and "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father."

Not having perfect knowledge or rejecting one earthly theory among many doesn't mean they are rejecting scripture, especially if they base their rejection of that theory in scripture.

As I have seen you do here with me - you are saying that you reject what Calvinists have clearly shown to any fair minded Bible believer to be scriptural.

You appear to be doing it because you wrongly attribute to them things they do not teach.

If you are rejecting "straw men" and not what Calvinists and the scriptures actually teach - I suppose one could say that you are not rejecting scripture.

But then - your wrong ideas concerning their teachings is the root cause of it.

If you are basing your theology on scripture only and not emotion – you will be in line with what true Calvinism teaches at least as far as these particular doctrines are concerned. In line with your straw men – not so much.

 

[HosannaHM]

Why did Adam and Eve sin? We’re they already sinners? No

Are you in the Pelagius camp?
Do you think that we are in the same condition that Adam and Eve had?

 

[HosannaHM]

What is the curse (the fall)? Is it not that Adam's descendants would be made sinners?

I would agree. The curse binds us in spiritual death and a natural inclination toward sin.

In other words, God does (in some sense) will the we sin, since He, through the curse, made us sinners.

I would prefer to use the word "allow" I think God allows us to sin and forgives us in His great mercy. As far as forcing us to sin, like some in this thread are saying, I don't think He has to. We sin naturally.

God could have given us the "new" heart right from the beginning.

Indeed. He very well could have. That's why I like this passage:
"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" Romans 9:22,23

The fall is the worst event in the history of mankind. Those on the other side of the pond(arminianism as opposed to calvinism) often find themselves trying to defend the character of God. "How can God be loving and not allow free will to man! That's not fair!"

I think God defends His character quite well, and this is a great example. God can allow vessels of wrath and sin(evil), all the while showcasing His mercy and love toward us. Would we know that great mercy and kindness if God wouldn't have allowed the fall?
I'm not certain though- His thoughts are way higher than ours.

 

[sunlover1]

sunlover1 said: ↑
God knew they would do it, but He didn't order it done. Those are two different things.

Au contraire!

"Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand." Isaiah 53:10

I know it was God's will for Jesus to suffer and die, that we might live.
But that doesn't mean that He ordered it done.
He really doesn't have to order evil, Marvin.
And He knows the ned from the beginning.
You see, we have different paradigms, perspectives, P'sOV etc.
whatever you want to call it. So through your Calvinist glasses
you see those words and say GOD ordered it done!
From my view, God can't lie, and I'm sure we agree about that
So when it says:
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God:
for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Besides!
No one TOOK His life, He was preordained to die, and it was He who laid down His life.
He didn't have to die, He "chose" to die.
It wasn't His will to die, but He gave His will over to the Father's when He said
"My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I will, but as You will."
Now here we can clearly see that He's distinguishing between His and Father's "will".
Matthew 26:42. A second time He went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cup cannot pass unless I drink it, may Your will be done." Luke 23:34. Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, ...

While the sovereign will of God is a difficult discussion - attempts to deny His absolute sovereign predestination of everything which happens in His creation is an attempt to diminish Him and it does not please Him for anyone to do so.

I think this right here is where the confusion comes in.
How is it denying His sovereignty if HE IN His soveignty decided to create a man,
(For what?, may help with the discussion?) then give that man his own little kingdom
so to speak, and give that man authority, which He did, right?
and then to give that man choices !
What kind of love is it if it's imposed?
I've said before, I'd LOVE to have God FORCE me to do good
but dang,, He says CHOOSE this day who you'll serve.
He says do not sin, do not fear, love your brother, do good to those
who hate you, and so forth.
Yet we do sin, we do fear, we don't love our brother right, we don't
do good to those who hate us etc..
too long, sorry.

People may be well meaning, I suppose, in their unscriptural conjectures - but they are rejecting the Word of God non the less.

One of us is being deceived. It's really that simple.
well, or both of us.

Calvinists may have some faults theologically. They are debatable.

But their theology concerning the sovereignty of God is a well meaning (and pretty much right on IMO) attempt to tackle a difficult subject.
It is better by far than the statements of those who simply want to criticize while adding little to the theological discussion on the subject.

I'm surprised at this statement to be sure.

P.S. - This criticism could have been leveled at any number of folks here. I simple chose your post to respond to because it was there and because you were the original OP.

I did not feel criticized at all! Communication is a capital thing isn't it?
Thank you for the discussion!

 

[sunlover1]

God pre ordains both Good and Evil : Col 1(17) !

so you're saying that yes, God ordains sin?
Doesn't that make Him double minded?
Don't sin
Do sin
Don't sin
Do sin

 

[mark kennedy]

Man the way you wrest scriptures with your endless private interpretstions is scary : I'd be afraid to continually explain away God's word the way you do : It does not matter what verse you are given you explain them all away in your own reasonings : Like Christ said : You make the word of God of none effect by your traditions : God's word cannot change you because you just explain it away whatever it says : Your mind is made up : don't confuse you with the facts !

It's because I know the Scriptures and my approach is exegetical, from there I'll simply do an exposition. The numbers of the hairs on your head in that context is don't worry about the cares of this life. That's not a private interpretation. What is more the knowledge of evil somehow being beneficial to us runs diametrically opposed to the message of Genesis 3 and the entire testimony of Scripture.

A nice rule of thumb for you John, a text without a context is a pretext. You can't just splice a couple of verses together in random fashion and make them mean whatever you like, it doesn't work that way. I have long held that the Scriptures will interpret themselves if you let them.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Are you in the Pelagius camp?
Do you think that we are in the same condition that Adam and Eve had?

I am not in the Pelagius camp fully

The Scripture camp is stronger

 

[redleghunter]

Simple question

Based on what premise exactly? The bondage of the wills?

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Faith is also the gift of God, and to believe the gospel you must be born again. Otherwise they won't believe

Faith is not a gift of God. This is a mistranslation of Eph 2:8. 'Faith' is not the gift there, nor can it be in the Greek as faith is in the feminine but the gift is neuter. The gift is the process of salvation, by grace and through faith.

The object of faith (Christ) is a gift revealed to man, as is the opportunity to believe the gospel and be saved as God did not have to make a way of salvation for fallen man. In those ways faith can be said to be a gift, since it's object and offering are a gift.

But faith is our response of belief to the gospel, the testimony of the Apostles and other witnesses, and the other evidences God has given of His truth.
What does it mean that it is by grace we have been saved, through faith, and that this is not of ourselves but is the gift of God?

We are born again after we believe, not to believe! Placing the new birth prior to faith is contrary to everything scripture says about baptism, our new life in Christ, and the indwelling spirit which only believers receive.
[Question: Does regeneration precede or follow faith?
See Answer: Does regeneration precede or follow faith?]

Good as in good to your fellow man, yes. Good as in good works given by God, no. Jesus even said apart from me you can do nothing. I'm also thinking of the rich young ruler. "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" Mark 10:18

This is mixing up being entirely good with doing some good. A Gentile can do good based on the law God has written on his heart, but not manage to be completely good (Rom 2:15.) A Jew could do many works of righteousness and obey many commands, but if he failed on even one count - even at the heart level - he would be a lawbreaker (James 2:10.)

And faith is not a work of the law, so even fallen man can 'do the work that God requires' and believe in the one He sent (Jn 6:28-29.)

Romans 3 can be applicable. No one is righteous- besides God and God alone. He even prepared our good works before hand. Our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Doing one or even many good works is not enough to make anyone righteous. The expression that our righteousness is as filthy rags doesn't mean God views an individual good work as filthiness (God frequently commends unbelievers who do good in scripture, and Cornelius' good works were even said to rise like incense before God.) Rather no matter how many good works we do our sin keeps us from being righteous - we not only don't have spotless white garments, we're covered in the blood and filth of our sin. Believers have the imputed righteousness of Christ so we wear the white garments He provides, not our own righteousness.

And faith is not a righteous work, so even the depraved masses of humanity can respond to the gospel in faith and believe that Christ was sinless and righteous and died to redeem them.

Those who believe in Christ submit to the Spirit and seek to obey. Christ gives us guidance. God wills and works in us to do His will - like a Master who motivates his servant and gives all the tools and guidance needed to perform the tasks the Master has prepared. [Note this doesn't mean every servant will perform them in the same way, or will obey perfectly, as the parable of the talents in Matt 25 shows.]

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not in the Pelagius camp fully

The Scripture camp is stronger

The Pelagius camp believes that you are not a sinner until you actually commit a sin, the sin of Adam was his responsibility. This has been condemned outright as heresy by Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant traditions but seems to raise it's ugly head from time to time. St. Thomas Aquinas actually debated Pelagius and was very adamant in his denial of this doctrine. While I have reservations about Catholic doctrine from time to time, this isn't one of the things I have a problem with, I think they are spot on, at least in formal doctrine.

 

[klutedavid]

Simple question

God's control of space time is absolute.

God has given mankind over to disobedience.

Does this then imply that God forces upon each individual, the very sin that they commit?

For example, was Hitler forced to gas the Jewish children by God Himself?

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

All pre ordained by God as part if his deliberate plan : to say otherwise is to imply that God is not in control of his own creation : When you start questioning God you are straying onto dangerous ground !

God is in ultimate control of all creation. That doesn't mean He has to push around every molecule and make every decision for every person in all of creation. He sets the natural laws: nature can't go outside of those laws, and He can even supercede those laws as needed. So why would God need to push around every molecule or wave as if His word was not enough to keep them within limits? God set the plan of salvation to be by faith alone: man cannot achieve salvation by his own works or merit or climb to heaven some other way. Why would God need to decide who would have faith or not as if His plan was not wise enough as it was? God sets moral laws and will punish wrongdoers: even someone escaping judgement in this life must pay the penalty at the judgement. Why would God need to micromanage what actions all evildoers must take, not just deferring judgement but actually allowing and mandating those sinful deeds? How would that show God's sovereignty - wouldn't it be the opposite?

Consider the words of the Centurion: "For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." Did the Centurion have to micromanage his soldiers? No. He knew they served him
(or rather served Rome but under his authority) and that he could punish any who were disobedient. Did the Centurion demand that Jesus personally come and revive his daughter? No - he knew that Jesus' word was enough.

[Question: Is God sovereign or do we have a free will?
See Answer: Is God sovereign or do we have a free will?

Question: How does God's sovereignty and mankind's free will work together in salvation?
See Answer: How does God's sovereignty and mankind's free will work together in salvation?
]
Studying scripture and not finding theories of man to hold up to it isn't 'dangerous ground' - we are supposed to test popular teachings we encounter against scripture to see if they are true.

 

[mark kennedy]

Faith is not a gift of God. This is a mistranslation of Eph 2:8. 'Faith' is not the gift there, nor can it be in the Greek as faith is in the feminine but the gift is neuter. The gift is the process of salvation, by grace and through faith.

Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, that was once, for all delivered to the saints, sounds like a gift to me.

looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb. 12:2)

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude: 3)​

 

[HosannaHM]

I am not in the Pelagius camp fully

The Scripture camp is stronger

That implies that the scriptures are on your side of the argument and I wouldn't be so certain of that. And would you please answer my question: Do we have the same condition that Adam and Eve have?

Speak the truth in love brother

 

[HosannaHM]

We are born again after we believe, not to believe! Placing the new birth prior to faith is contrary to everything scripture says about baptism, our new life in Christ, and the indwelling spirit which only believers receive.
[Question: Does regeneration precede or follow faith?

Because typing has no emotion, I am trying to politely disagree with just about everything you said on this post. Jesus tells Nicodemus that you have to be born again to enter the kingdom of God. Nicodemus asks him how to do it and the answer goes like this: "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” So how does that work if professing faith precedes regeneration?

Those who believe in Christ submit to the Spirit and seek to obey. Christ gives us guidance. God wills and works in us to do His will - like a Master who motivates his servant and gives all the tools and guidance needed to perform the tasks the Master has prepared. [Note this doesn't mean every servant will perform them in the same way, or will obey perfectly, as the parable of the talents in

This part is pretty good unless motivation is like a coach cheering me on to cross the finish line. I think He is more active in the work.

I am impressed with your thoroughness and I actually appreciate the representation of your argument. I just don't agree because I think men save themselves in your interpretation (i.e. "the ball is in our court"). God doesn't get the credit or the glory for a sinner saved. After all, everyone who make the right "decision" will follow God, while all those who aren't smart enough to make the right choice won't. I believe men are spiritually dead(Eph 2) like it says, that faith is the gift of God(which many theologians interpret it that way), and that God gets 100% of the glory for everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord.

Is there room for men to boast if salvation precedes regeneration?

And why would men choose God when it's completely contrary to their nature(1 Cor. 2:14)?

You must be born again to believe

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

God's ordaining that people do something does not equate to people being "ordered" to do those things.

God ordaining an event to occur (Christ's death) doesn't equate to any individual being ordered to participate - with that I agree. But if God ordained a specific individual to a specific task, that would equate to an order for that person to do that task whether the person was aware of it or not.

nomotheteó (Greek) - ordain; enact; base legally (Heb 7:11, Heb 8:6)
Ordain (English) to officially appoint someone to a position; to officially establish or order something
kathistémi (Greek) - appoint, set in place, put in charge
shaphath (Hebrew) - put in place, set
male (Hebrew) - fill (often used in a generic and literal sense, but in the sense of ordain means to appoint or consecrate)
tsavah (Hebrew) - command, order, lay charge

Etc. Ordination carries with it the connotation of legal consent and will.

"He provided redemption for his people; he ordained his covenant forever-- holy and awesome is his name." Psalm 111:9

It is the covenant and all things pertaining to it (Christ's death and resurrection, the Gentiles being brought in, faith as the only way to receive Christ, etc.) which God foreordained.

Both. Just as the authoritative Calvinist Westminster Confession of Faith says.

“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

I have frequently seen this quoted in full by Calvinists, but never explained. This is not scripture; it is basically a statement that "We hold a view that states God ordains sin, but we hereby declare that we also hold the contradictory belief that God is not the author of sin."

The Westminster confession is not an explanation at all. It would be like someone saying, "We believe that God commanded, tempted, and ensured that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit, but not in any way that caused God to be responsible for Adam's sin or removed Adam's agency." That's not a reason why A doesn't mean B, rather it is declaring that one holds both A and not A to be true at the same time.

“God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

That I agree with - but God doesn't have to govern by micromanagement nor must he determine every action man takes to ensure that His redemptive plan happens.

…… Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. …………. . God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.”

It can certainly be stated that everything in God's plan (Christ's death, resurrection, future judgement, prophecies, key points in history, etc.) will occur by God's decree. It can be said that everything else that occurs will occur according to God's foreknowledge - He is not going to be surprised by anything since time is merely another created dimension to Him. He can view time from all vantage points. However, that doesn't mean He must order every non-plan related instance to fall out exactly as it does. If it doesn't affect His plan whether a wave moves three inches or four, or a molecule pops up in one location vs. another, then He can freely allow nature to work within the bounds He has given it and not order them to fall out a certain way.

That is with the obvious exception of noting that "pre-limiting" and "setting boundaries beforehand" does determine what can and cannot happen and therefore what can and cannot be the destinies of things or persons in God's creation both ultimately and along the way.

Pre-setting boundaries does set limits on what can happen and what is impossible. Israel, notably, had more interference from God to work within His pre-set plans than any other nation. At time He enlarged the boundaries, at times allowed them to be subjected to other nations, and even hardened them in their stubbornness at the time of Christ. This was all to ensure His redemptive plan of bringing Christ through the nation of Israel take place. But even in this, the strongest example of God's limits on a nation in scripture, God didn't micromanage every action and destiny of the people within Israel. He set aside prophets and had kings anointed, but that is about the closest one can get to God deciding the destiny of a person - let alone their every action or thought.

The doctrine of predestination does not teach that God is associated intimately with the motion of every water molecule and every wave in the sea. Nor does the doctrine of sovereignty.

I'm glad you do not personally believe that, and I know it is not a view held by every Calvinist, but it is a common one. I've encountered several Calvinists (such as J.D. Greear) or other teachers that propose if a single molecule acted outside the *direct guidance* of God telling it or pushing it exactly where to go the universe would unravel, and things of that nature. Calvinism, as with any theory, is not a monolithic belief where every Calvinist believes the exact same things on everything.

"Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" and "In Him we live and move and have our being." and "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father."

Great verses, but they do not prove the Calvinist version of predestination as exclusive to all other theories. All they show is that a) God is everywhere, b) That God made men to seek him, we only have our life and being and existence due to God, and so we are all offspring of God in that sense (Acts 17:27-29,) and c) That God sees everything.

Basically, God is omnipresent, the omnipotent creator, and that He is omniscient as well. Few Christians would disagree with that, and that is hardly something that Calvinists alone believe.

As I have seen you do here with me - you are saying that you reject what Calvinists have clearly shown to any fair minded Bible believer to be scriptural.

I have yet to see any scripture that supports Calvinism to the exclusion of other views. I have seen (and posted) many scriptures that contradict the theory as a whole. I have seen a lot of insults towards non-Calvinists (in the thread, not calling out anyone in particular) saying they are on dangerous ground, Pelagian, anti-scripture, etc. Ad-hominems are not a good way to convince me a view is true.

You appear to be doing it because you wrongly attribute to them things they do not teach.

You not personally believing a common theory among Calvinists doesn't mean that no Calvinist teaches a thing or that it isn't a consistent corralory view along with TULIP. It would be impossible to debate what everyone's personal variant beliefs are on Calvinism or any other issue, so one can only discuss the common views of T.U.L.I.P. and closely held common implications that many prominent Calvinists believe and publically teach (like regeneration preceding faith, determinism, God ordaining sin, etc.) Discussing a common belief is not a straw-man, although you certainly are free to clarify that you reject such a teaching even when Calvinists hold to it. A strawman is not discussing a view actual people (but not you) hold, rather it is building a fake argument that is based on your interpretation of a view. 'Calvinists don't encourage evangelism' or 'Arminians believe that their own righteousness has a part in their salvation' are common straw-men on this topic.

If you are basing your theology on scripture only and not emotion – you will be in line with what true Calvinism teaches at least as far as these particular doctrines are concerned. In line with your straw men – not so much.

I'll have to defer to others reading the thread here. Have my posts been "emotion filled" or have they dealt with scripture? My overall thoughts on Calvinism are here: [Question: What is Calvinism and is it biblical? What are the five points of Calvinism? See Answer: What is Calvinism and is it biblical? What are the five points of Calvinism?]

I've been researching this topic for years. I find that scripture easily dismantles many claims of Calvinism, and I have yet to find scripture verses or passages that demand Calvinism as the only (or even the best) explanation when context, limits of the word use (vs. philosophy pulled from an over-extrapolated interpretation,) and the underlying Greek are examined.

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Because typing has no emotion, I am trying to politely disagree with just about everything you said on this post. Jesus tells Nicodemus that you have to be born again to enter the kingdom of God. Nicodemus asks him how to do it and the answer goes like this: "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” So how does that work if professing faith precedes regeneration?

Quite easily. Jesus is talking about entering the kingdom of God, not about getting faith. We need to be born of the Spirit to enter the kingdom, but we don't need to be born of the Spirit to have faith.

It's like Jesus' parable of the King's banquet in Matt 22. The people needed several things to be at the banquet: they needed to be invited, they needed to actually come, and they needed to actually put on the provided garments. The gospel is our invitation, faith is our coming to the banquet (Christ,) and Christ's righteousness is the garments we replace our sinful rags with. Yet no one would claim that the people needed the garments *before* they could come to the door and receive them!

Scripture shows that believers in the New Covenant, through Christ, are born of the Spirit in Gal 5:28-31. We are baptized into this one spirit after we believe, not before, and this allows us to participate in the body of Christ, the church - the present Kingdom of God on Earth. We even literally receive a Spiritual body at the resurrection (I Cor 15,) which allows us to enter the literal Kingdom of God on Earth.

This part is pretty good unless motivation is like a coach cheering me on to cross the finish line. I think He is more active in the work.

I think He is more active too. He sets the goal, sets the exercise routine, and even provides nutrients for the race itself. But we still have to run the race, watch that we follow the rules, focus on the prize, discipline ourselves, etc. (I Cor 9:24-25.) Likewise, God provides all the armor and the battle plan (Eph 6), but we have to put the armor on and stand firm where He places us. Being strong in the Lord and His mighty power doesn't mean He does everything for us or that we are immune from struggling or disobedience.

I am impressed with your thoroughness and I actually appreciate the representation of your argument. I just don't agree because I think men save themselves in your interpretation (i.e. "the ball is in our court").

Why do you believe that God creating the plan of salvation to require fallen man to place faith in Christ's work mean men save themselves? On what basis could that comparison be made? Do we do the work? (No, Christ does.) Did we make the plan? (No, Christ did.) Is faith itself a work of the law or a meritorious work of righteousness? No. God graciously allowing a captive to accept rescue doesn't mean that the captive saved himself by accepting that rescue.

God doesn't get the credit or the glory for a sinner saved. After all, everyone who make the right "decision" will follow God, while all those who aren't smart enough to make the right choice won't.

#1 Faith is in every way contrary to boasting, as scripture explicitly states. How could a sinner confessing he is wretched and needs a righteous Saviour be 'taking credit' for Christ's righteousness? It is God's gracious offer to credit the righteousness of Christ to our account - but that doesn't mean the sinner can boast that He did the work or paid the price. The sinner can only say, "Thank Christ for paying my unpayable debt."

What does it mean in Rom 3:27 that boasting is excluded because of the law that requires faith?

And if scripture says faith is contrary to boasting, then on what basis are you claiming that faith would be equivalent to boasting unless Calvinism was true? That's a philosophical speculation, but not something scripture states.

As for faith being a matter of "smarts" - it has nothing to do with intellect. Very smart men have accepted Christ, and very smart men have rejected Christ. Mentally disabled people have accepted Christ; mentally disabled people have rejected Christ. Blaise Pascal describes in Pensee's that whether one responds in faith based on an emotional response or reasoned intellectual inner debate is irrelevant; what matters is that you are persuaded of the truth. Some people must hear the gospel over and over - others come to Christ upon the first gospel presentation.

I believe men are spiritually dead(Eph 2) like it says, that faith is the gift of God(which many theologians interpret it that way), and that God gets 100% of the glory for everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord.

Eph 2 does not state that faith is the gift (some theologians interpret it that way in order to support a man-made theory, but there is no basis in the Greek for such a rendering. Faith and grace are feminine, gift is neuter. Gift can only apply, then, to the antecedent clause as a whole ("By grace you have been saved, through faith") - our being saved is the gift.

Eph 2 doesn't state "you were so spiritually dead you couldn't have faith" - rather it states we were formerly dead in our trespasses and sins. Eph 2:1-4 explains what is meant by this: We followed the ways of the world and the rule of the air, we gratified the cravings of the flesh, and we were by nature deserving of wrath.

Is there room for men to boast if salvation precedes regeneration?

Sure, they could boast that God chose them specifically to be regenerated, and that they didn't even have to go through faith in Christ first like God asks everyone else to. They could boast that they must be special and amazing for God to care so much about them so as to choose them and ensure that they would be saved and enter the kingdom.

My husband made a great point on this though - just because people do boast sometimes doesn't mean there is a basis for it. The example he loves to use is sports games: "We won! We totally humiliated that other team!" - says the fan who neither played in the game nor even bought a ticket. Nor would anyone listening to such a fan genuinely believe that the accomplishment and glory of the team is diminished by an errant fan attaching himself to it.

Faith is contrary to boasting. So if a believer were to boast, it would be their misunderstanding of faith - not a sign that somehow God's glory was being diminished.

And why would men choose God when it's completely contrary to their nature(1 Cor. 2:14)?

I Cor 2:14 does not say that responding to the gospel in faith is contrary to man's nature (especially when Christ drew all by His death, when the Spirit convicts the world of sin, etc.) In I Cor 2:14 Paul is giving a message of wisdom "among the mature" about the spiritual things we understand *after* we come to faith and now have the Spirit to help us discern. Of course unbelievers do not have the Spirit to help them discern these spiritual things. They can't grow in Christ, discern scripture, add knowledge to faith, etc. as they do not have the indwelling spirit to aid them. Unbelievers generally view all such study by Christians as nonsense.

That doesn't mean they cannot have faith. Faith is not something we add by help of the Spirit, rather it is the starting point for our relationship with Christ and walk by the Spirit (II Pet 1:3-11.)

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, that was once, for all delivered to the saints, sounds like a gift to me.

looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb. 12:2)

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude: 3)​

Heb 12:2 tells us that Jesus Himself is the "pioneer and perfecter of faith". Pioneer is the greek 'archégos' - it means 'the first in a long procession'; the founder of a movement or a file-leader. Jesus is the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:28-30), and through Him we receive the promise of the Spirit (Gal 3:13-14).

Author is an unfortunate English translation (as are translations like initiator or source), as the Greek does not have the connotations of source, creator, or maker that the English term 'author' has.

Faith is the firm persuasion that Jesus is who He claims, that He has the authority to forgive sins, that He did die on the cross, etc. Without Jesus, there would not be saving Faith! Faith is the assurance of what we hope for; Jesus gave us this joy when He rose from the grave, becoming the firstborn among many brethren.

"In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters" Heb 2:10-12

Heb 5:7-10 focuses back on the aspect of Jesus enduring great suffering in order to become the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him. Here the word is not archégos, but rather 'aitios'. This term means cause or source. "Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect (finished), he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him".

Salvation has its source in Christ (Rom 10:13-17), but someone cannot have faith if they never hear the Word about Christ. They must hear, and they must call upon the Lord, and then they will be saved. Again, hearing and obeying!

[Question: What does it mean that Jesus is the author and perfecter of our faith?
See Answer: What does it mean that Jesus is the author and perfecter of our faith?]

Jude 3 is not speaking of individual saints each being delivered faith one time. It is speaking of the faith that was "once for all delivered" to the saints. It is this gospel message/common faith (Tit 1:4, Phil 1:7, etc.) they now spread.